[Openembedded-architecture] LSB is dead; when shall we drop it?

[Mark Hatle]

On 4/7/17 8:43 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On 04/07/2017 04:29 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> 
>> The main question here is if we are going to keep OpenSSL 1.0 and 1.1 in
>> parallel inside OE-Core or not. For Pyro I think we should stay on 1.0
>> or have 1.1 as an opt-in option, but for 2.4 I would say to drop 1.0 if
>> possible and move 1.0 to a layer ... potentially, lsb support could be
>> moved to a layer as we did with gplv2 and qt4.
> 
> Pyro will have 1.0 only. It is too late to introduce anything new to it.
> 
> For 2.4 there will be no opt-ins to openssl 1.1, sorry. You will have to 
> opt-out of it. Opt-in means no one will do anything to port their stuff 
> to 1.1 until 1.0 is unsupported upstream and removed, and then there'll 
> lots of moaning that there still needs to be more time for the 
> transition. Opting out is trivial - change your DEPENDS from openssl to 
> openssl10 (which means you implicitly agree to depend on a deprecated 
> component).
> 
> Dropping 1.0 is not possible, at least not now - openssh for instance 
> has not been ported to 1.1.
> 
> Patches are here if anyone wants to look at the code:
> https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=akanavin/openssl-1.1
> 
> 
> Whether LSB support is in a separate layer or not does not actually 
> matter. What matters is whether the autobuolder is testing it, and 
> therefore any failures must be resolved before patches are merged to master.

I really think this needs to be clarified.  It would be perfectly reasonable to me:

1) Autobuilder 'tests' LSB within the scope that is defined by the project.

2) Defects are opened for test failures.  (Test failures do NOT block code
changes, unless they are specifically related to 'LSB' work.)

3) People who care about the LSB will resolve the defects.  Resolution is:
   - release note explaining the issue/limitation with a test-case update
   - actual code change to resolve a problem


The LSB should not be driving the work.  The general open source community is
what should be driving the work forward, and the LSB work -- since it's a
conformance test -- should be reacting to that work.

I would not consider the OE passing a random testing to be good or bad.  We run
tests to gain knowledge and decide what that knowledge means -- that is what
defined a pass or failure.

--Mark

> Alex
>